You are here

The Oklahoman: TANF drug-testing proposal should be vetted by courts first

The Oklahoman: TANF drug-testing should be vetted by courts first

Oklahoma House Bill 2388 pits taxpayers against tax consumers, conservatives against liberals, one drug policy against another drug policy and ideology against pragmatism.

How can one bill do all that? By mandating drug tests as a condition for getting welfare benefits. Private firms test job applicants for drugs. Why shouldn’t the state? This seems like an easy call. It’s not.

Matters of public policy should themselves be subject to testing: What’s broken that needs fixing? What would the policy cost? How much money, if any, would it save? Who would be helped by the policy? Who would be hurt?

We’re not satisfied that these questions have been answered. Some of them may not even have been asked.

Testing welfare recipients for drugs is popular. The House approved HB 2388 by a vote of 82-6. State Question 775 was also popular. Seventy percent of voters approved the measure to ban state judges from using Sharia law in court rulings. In that case, nothing was broken that needed fixing. The law was immediately challenged in federal court and its defense is costing taxpayers.

A number of laws, some passed by lawmakers and some by the people, are now being defended against legal challenges. This alone isn’t a reason to oppose HB 2388. The drug-testing policy will be challenged, as it has been elsewhere. Opponents say mandatory drug testing for welfare applicants is unconstitutional, but that legal question is far from being settled.

Oklahoma already screens TANF (Temporary Assistance for Needy Families) applicants for substance abuse. Subjective screening isn’t the same as an actual chemical test, however. HB 2388 requires that drug tests be done at the applicant’s expense, meaning that all applicants — most of whom are impoverished — must pay for the test even if they’ve never used a drug.

Drug addiction is a disease. Oklahoma has an especially heinous addiction problem. Yet lawmakers have devoted too little resources to treatment programs. HB 2388 would direct those who test positive for drugs to treatment programs, but it wouldn’t pay for treatment. Might the cost of defending HB 2388 be better applied to treatment?

Eighty-one percent of TANF recipients are children. They wouldn’t be tested. Their benefits couldn’t be taken away if a parent or guardian tests positive. The remaining recipients — 19 percent of the total — are the obvious targets of the bill. Is the discovery of drug use among some of these adults worth a prolonged and costly court challenge?

Some opponents of HB 2388 say every recipient of state funds should be tested if TANF recipients are. That’s an inane argument unworthy of this debate. Lawmakers must decide if the idea of getting drug users off the dole is worth the toll it will take on the treasury. Aside from the constitutional question is the matter of unintended consequences. Will some children eligible for benefits not get them because a guardian refused to take a drug test?

Without opposing the concept itself, we urge the Legislature to wait on mandatory testing — at least until court challenges in other states determine the constitutionality of the practice.